Literally just opened the Batis 135 box and was surprised at the size of the lens compared to the Canon 135L (which is obviously one stop faster). I thought I'd provide some images in case they might be useful to others.

Both caps on

Both caps off

Both caps off, but with the Metabones IV adapter on the Canon 135L - this is the comparison you'd be interested in for using both lenses on the E mount system

Finally, the same comparison as above, but with lens hoods in place (the Canon lens hood is noticeably longer than the Zeiss)

The Canon lens does feel heavier, not a lot, but enough that I can tell a difference.

:-)

Edit: and the difference with the adapter attached to the Canon lens exaggerates the disparity noticeably

One thing ís for sure, the Fatis..sorry.. Batis 135 is the bulkiest 135/2.8 ever made.
What happened to those nice telescopic built-in lens hoods that you never forget at home, never get lost or fall and take no space in your bag ? Is that much to ask in lenses of this price ?.
While the Batis hood is already absurdly big, the Canon 135 hood goes a step beyond, becoming a bad joke.

GMPhotography wrote:
Yea the hoods are just crazy. I m using a metal screw in hood . The original never seen daylight .

Quick question... I know a lot of people use hoods which weren't originally intended for a lens. Are there downsides to this? Aren't the hoods designed to block stray light based on the physical design of the lens?

Jonathan Brady wrote:
Quick question... I know a lot of people use hoods which weren't originally intended for a lens. Are there downsides to this? Aren't the hoods designed to block stray light based on the physical design of the lens?

Not really unless you get too short of one. First they make them so oversize its a little ridiculous to be honest. Second they are for protection as well. I just hate big hoods

The hoods of ALL modern Zeiss lenses are fabulous for what many lenses are used for - field work. They are a no compromise outfit on this front and I've yet to see a ghost on the Loxia 85mm which has a hood most would expect to vignette heavily. Probably because Zeiss are always getting canned in reviews for optical vignetting, lol, like their optical design staff don't know enough. As long as the hoods reverse mount, be happy.

Unlike Sony A, Sigma and Milvus, Canon's 135/2 L is one of the smaller and lighter in its class: 750 grams against the Batis 135/2.8 of 614 grams, for a mere 22% more weight. Just part of the story, sadly - it's a 10/8 design dating from 1996, film days. It is a solid performer on film and ~21mp cameras, but the comparison to the Batis 135mm might as well stop with your side-by-side images.

The gain (at all common non-diffraction apertures of perhaps 20% optical performance) is also indicative of the transition to a new approach to portraits: from soft 'artistic' dreamy ~f2 lenses shot wide open, to 'in your face' performance which shows faces/jewellery/clothing with authenticity never seen before at WO. No soft Sony FE options in Zeiss's portrait lenses, I'm afraid. Work it down in post if, on occasion, you need that old fashioned, Canon/Nikon look in their (still for sale for four figures!) film era 135mm lenses. The 135/2 DC is another oldie (1995), and at 815 grams also quite manageable.